Being at the game (fun, fun) this is what I saw:
Negatives:
-Rodgers never felt comfortable with zero protection. He didn't know where the next rusher was coming. At least in the past the QB knows one of his linemen is having trouble he can keep an eye out but it was pure jailbreak.
-Safety play - Watched Burnett a lot and just seams to be reactionary...never breaking balls up, poor anticipation. Though with no pass rush, it's hard to fault the secondary play at all.
-Alex Green - Please break a tackle here and there, shades of Grant. Where was Starks?
-Leadership - Who gives a **** about winning on this defense?
-Hawk - Exposed again, average at best.
Positives:
-I didn't get in any altercations at the game
I fear the Packers don't have a chance against the Niners or the Giants as their lines are just far superior than ours and that's where games are won. The Giants beat Brady because of their defensive line...in both Super Bowls.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:
Agree tit, which is why I put a lot of the blame on game planning with the coaching staff. Anybody that thought Newhouse could man up and block JPP and Umenyiora one on one is delusional. There should have been a TE permanently glued to Newhouse's hip the entire game. Sometimes you double the RDE, sometimes you chip him and roll out for a 5 yard pass to keep the chains moving. Instead, MM goes empty backfield while Arod is trying to find a receiver 20 yards down the field when he's running for his life.
Dum.
I also stopped watching at halftime. Like others have said, it just wasn't their night. Every team has bad games. The Bears got annihilated by the Niners last week, but they're 8-3.
The Giants (with losses to the Steelers, Eagles, Bengals, and Cowboys) are not as good as they looked last night. Likewise, the Packers aren't as bad as they looked. At least it wasn't a playoff game.
The lines have been weak spots this year and they were exposed last night. MM needs to figure out how to make it work. I think he will.
I liked MM's decision to let Crosby try the long field goal in the first quarter....although I have to admit I cringed when I saw him running onto the field. Somehow, MM needs to figure out a way to get Crosby some confidence back because he's our guy for at least the rest of this season. Making a 55 yarder would have been a big step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it didn't work....nothing worked last night.
The Giants (with losses to the Steelers, Eagles, Bengals, and Cowboys) are not as good as they looked last night. Likewise, the Packers aren't as bad as they looked. At least it wasn't a playoff game.
The lines have been weak spots this year and they were exposed last night. MM needs to figure out how to make it work. I think he will.
I liked MM's decision to let Crosby try the long field goal in the first quarter....although I have to admit I cringed when I saw him running onto the field. Somehow, MM needs to figure out a way to get Crosby some confidence back because he's our guy for at least the rest of this season. Making a 55 yarder would have been a big step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it didn't work....nothing worked last night.
quote:
"That's a pretty good group," Packers general manager Ted Thompson told Bob McGinn, talking about the Giants' defensive line. "So I don't want to discount those guys being able to make plays. But we've got to protect our passer."
OL and DL
quote:
"There's no rhyme or reason about it," right guard Josh Sitton told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel after the game. "They beat us up, man. They kicked our (expletive) today. Give them credit."
quote:
Said Raji: "There's no sugarcoating it. We got embarrassed tonight."
Ted Thompson said:
Gee, you think so, Ted?
(Yeah, I know TT doesn't read x4.)
quote:But we've got to protect our passer.
Gee, you think so, Ted?
(Yeah, I know TT doesn't read x4.)
quote:Not much. In the big picture the game really doesn't matter much but I still would have liked a better performance.
Yes and no.
The game may (though it very well could come playoff seeding) not matter much in the W/L column but I think it was huge when considering how badly it exposed this team. Some of the their weaknesses were well known before the game but the Giants really put a cherry on top. I also can't imagine how a beatdown this bad doesn't put a ton of doubt in their heads about what they are or are not capable of. They could still very well win the division and possibly a playoff game but when it comes time to face SF or NYG again, I see them bending over. That's what last night looked like.
quote:Originally posted by packerboi:
The Packers sorely miss Nick Collins out there.
They sure do, and you can't expect them to simply replace a guy like him.
That being said, he's been out for almost 2 full seasons. The coaching staff and the GM needs to account for this loss and adjust. Losing him in such a freak way sucks, but you either figure out how to gameplan differently without him or you need to develop someone to be at least adequate.
Thus far in almost 2 seasons, neither has happened and that's very concerning.
quote:But MM also has to plan better when facing teams like this or the 49ers when we see them again. This is yet another game where MM is in some fog and fails to make any kind of adjustment, get chip help, throw in a Kuhn or even a guy like Quarless to help block.
It is mind boggling to me that the offense doesn't do anything differently in these types of games. Roll outs, move the pocket, shorter passing game. I'm sure it's not as simple, but it sure feels like it's the same offense regardless of opponent or situation.
quote:If MM keeps Crosby from trying what was a ridiculous attempt and Hayward intercepts what likely would have been a pick 6 at their 25 yard line, perhaps it's a different game and at least closer.
The missed INT was killer. Like you said, does it change the outcome? No idea, but would have been a big play.
As for the FG attempt, indefensible. There were 3 options. Go for it, punt, and FG. MM picked the worst of those 3 options. Just stupefying.
quote:As per usual with MM's history, look for a thorough ass kicking by the Packer's next week with the Queens at home. Exit Dr. Jekyll. Enter Mr. Hyde.
Wouldn't surprise me at all. But, with Peterson and Minny's DL, it also wouldn't surprise me if it's another tense close game.
The toughest thing to deal with is there's a real good chance this loss will drop GB a few places in ESPN's power rankings. That's when reality hits home!
IIRC, there was no conceivable way the Packers would be able to overcome their ST and defensive play following a week 11 road loss in Atlanta in 2010. The ST couldn't stop anyone and the defense couldn't hold a lead.
Sweep the division. Win the NFC North and see what happens.
The only losses that mean anything are the ones that eliminate you from making the playoffs or the ones that remove you from the playoffs.
IIRC, there was no conceivable way the Packers would be able to overcome their ST and defensive play following a week 11 road loss in Atlanta in 2010. The ST couldn't stop anyone and the defense couldn't hold a lead.
Sweep the division. Win the NFC North and see what happens.
The only losses that mean anything are the ones that eliminate you from making the playoffs or the ones that remove you from the playoffs.
Anybody else catch Tramon Williams' shoddy effort last night in run support? There were times when he didn't even make an attempt to get into position to tackle the running back.
Let's just face it, this was MM's worst coaching performance since he has been here. The offensive game plan that leverages an offensive line that can't move anyone doesn't work, he failed to cover Rogers back side, there was no short passing game plan, they failed to have a game plan for putting pressure on Manning, they couldn't stop the run, etc.
On top of it, the team was emotionally flat. Rodgers kept dancing around in the backfield trying to figure out which Giant defender was going to sack him next.
On top of it, the team was emotionally flat. Rodgers kept dancing around in the backfield trying to figure out which Giant defender was going to sack him next.
Bottom line is that TT gambled by going into this season with razor thin depth at Offensive line when he should have considered dipping into free agency for some depth. Saturday is playing poorly and with Bulaga's injury, we have Lang playing out of position and EDS playing guard when he probably should be the starting center. It's hard to nit-pick on TT because he has done a great job running this team, but O-line has been his weakness. The top threats to the Packers in the NFC are SF, NYG and Bears, and each has a solid defense led by outstanding D-lines. To enter a season with no viable backups - other than rookies and undrafted free agents - was suicidal and the Packers are paying for it now.
quote:Originally posted by Badgeman:
+
Nothing
-
Sometimes it's the plays you don't make that get you beat:
1. MM inexpicably has Crosby try a 55 yd fg (Crosby had to have tole MM he could make from there). Of course, it's wide left and 2 minutes later the Gints are in the end zone.
2. Heyward drops his int opportunity. Webster does not. Momentum changing plays that they make and we do not.
The realization that is setting in when looking at the playoffs. It's pretty clear the Packers cannot compete in the trenches against the likes of the Niners and Gints. Given that they are both in the NFC, how are the Packers going to win either of those games? Maybe we'll luck out and be in the opposite bracket from one of them, but watching those two games yesterday (Niners-Aints & Packers-Gints) does not give me a good feeling on how this season will end.
IMO, the only way we beat them(besides getting healthy) and be effective on Offense is MM submitting going to a real West Coast offense with a FB. He'll need a lead blocker that comes out of stance going vertically, not a frickin HBack TE going sideways at the snap. Those 2 backs will have to be split backs once in awhile to chip and/or flare straight to the flats. He needs to spread out the Cover 2 horizontally and let Finley/TE really work the middle and take littler bites of yardage. With the 2 backs the screen game has to come back in a big way.
The Homerun ball needs to be setup vs. the Cover2, not trying it on every play.
We need some semblance of ball control vs. Giants/9ers even if we do not run that much.( screens and backs flat passes)
All JMO.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I think the Giants got lucky several times. That happens in the NFL sometimes. Sometimes the bounces just go your way. We had dropped INTs, we missed two muffed punts, Rodgers fumble was right at two Packer OL's feet, etc. If we get those INTs, get those muffed punts, Saturday realizes there was a fumble and falls on it, etc. the game is COMPLETELY different.
Eli Manning is a guy that feeds off the momentum. The momentum was in his favor and he was hot. Think about that Giants game from 2010...the Giants got NONE of the bounces, not of the breaks, and THEY got run out of the stadium. It happens, that's the NFL.
The biggest break they got was getting their players back from injury and the Packers losing a bunch to injury. It's a different game with CM3 and Woodson in there.
I like to focus on the positives, so what went right:
+ Dezman Moses is legit. He needs to get stronger and improve his game against the run, but he is a SPEED rusher! If he had been facing a slower LT he would have had multiple sacks.
+ They didn't throw at Hayward. That's the sign you have a legit CB. They tried to pick on House and the success was so-so IMO. Nicks had a couple good grabs, but House had a few good break-ups and played very physical.
+ Finley trucked at CB. That was awesome! I dog Finley when he's being a turd, but I will also give him credit when he makes a good play.
+ Green ran a lot harder than he has all season. He had some great opportunities that the Giants just barely got to. It's a game of inches and Green would have busted some really good runs if not for a couple miracle shoe string tackles.
Eli Manning is a guy that feeds off the momentum. The momentum was in his favor and he was hot. Think about that Giants game from 2010...the Giants got NONE of the bounces, not of the breaks, and THEY got run out of the stadium. It happens, that's the NFL.
The biggest break they got was getting their players back from injury and the Packers losing a bunch to injury. It's a different game with CM3 and Woodson in there.
I like to focus on the positives, so what went right:
+ Dezman Moses is legit. He needs to get stronger and improve his game against the run, but he is a SPEED rusher! If he had been facing a slower LT he would have had multiple sacks.
+ They didn't throw at Hayward. That's the sign you have a legit CB. They tried to pick on House and the success was so-so IMO. Nicks had a couple good grabs, but House had a few good break-ups and played very physical.
+ Finley trucked at CB. That was awesome! I dog Finley when he's being a turd, but I will also give him credit when he makes a good play.
+ Green ran a lot harder than he has all season. He had some great opportunities that the Giants just barely got to. It's a game of inches and Green would have busted some really good runs if not for a couple miracle shoe string tackles.
Manning is getting some praise today for his play last night, but I saw some putrid throws from him.
Still think Green can be a solid RB in the NFL, even if it's just as a situational back. He's just playing behind a turd OL that I doubt Barry Sanders in his prime would have done much with.
I'm very interested in what Hayward and House will grow up to be. Hayward's already playing like a vet (Quietly, but he's farther ahead than most CBs in their rookie year) and while House may be inexperienced, he's still coming off an injury and isn't completely vulnerable out there. Combine them with Williams, Shields, and Woodson, and that is a very potent secondary when they're healthy.
I'm very interested in what Hayward and House will grow up to be. Hayward's already playing like a vet (Quietly, but he's farther ahead than most CBs in their rookie year) and while House may be inexperienced, he's still coming off an injury and isn't completely vulnerable out there. Combine them with Williams, Shields, and Woodson, and that is a very potent secondary when they're healthy.
Yeah Manning was really off. He got LUCKY on a lot of throws. He should have had 3 INTs in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Rusty:
Still think Green can be a solid RB in the NFL, even if it's just as a situational back. He's just playing behind a turd OL that I doubt Barry Sanders in his prime would have done much with.
Then you must not be old enough to remember watching Barry Sanders.
Probably not, but I have a hard time believing it's solely Green's fault he hasn't had a barn-burning year.
The Barry Sanders reference wasn't a good one. He played on horrible teams and routinely made dazzling plays out of nothing.
But I agree on Green. I think he's better than his production, or lack there of, and it can be attributed to poor line play. He's not good enough to make several people miss and create his own opportunities. Few running backs are. Sanders was one of the few that could.
But I agree on Green. I think he's better than his production, or lack there of, and it can be attributed to poor line play. He's not good enough to make several people miss and create his own opportunities. Few running backs are. Sanders was one of the few that could.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:
Anybody else catch Tramon Williams' shoddy effort last night in run support? There were times when he didn't even make an attempt to get into position to tackle the running back.
.....Williams is a "finesse cover" DB who doesn't appear to like contact. When Shields gets back in the line up, we have two guys who don't like to tackle. This is why it becomes even more critical that our front 7 play well. When runners & receivers get open field, these two aren't going to make many tackles. Another problem last night was our interior pass rushers were getting too far apart which gave Manning big lanes to step up into to see the field fully.
On the topic of "did you catch that", I saw several Packer defensive lineman pancaked last night too. The first one I noticed was Worthy on the goal line in the first quarter. I think it was the Giants first TD, but I'm not sure. Just absolutely blown the F up.
Too many times last night Hawk charged the wrong gap and effectively took himself out of plays. He guessed right once last night on 3rd and 1. When he guesses wrong and an OL or FB get's their hands on him he's done. Or in the case when the FB got him Hawk was able to shed the block and limit the gain to 11 yards.....
Hawk had one of the worst games I've ever seen by an ILB. He was always a step slow, taking the wrong angle, or just reading the play wrong.
I've said this 100 times, this defense lives or dies by the ILBs. If the ILBs are having a bad game, the defense sucks. That's why Pittsburgh puts an emphasis on having good, reliable players who do their jobs at ILB. Hawk is not a good fit, he's overpaid and he's completely unreliable.
I've said this 100 times, this defense lives or dies by the ILBs. If the ILBs are having a bad game, the defense sucks. That's why Pittsburgh puts an emphasis on having good, reliable players who do their jobs at ILB. Hawk is not a good fit, he's overpaid and he's completely unreliable.
quote:Originally posted by FLPACKER:
When Shields gets back in the line up, we have two guys who don't like to tackle.
This isn't fair. Shields has been A LOT better this year about sticking his nose in there and supporting the run. He may not be good at it, but he is trying.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:quote:Originally posted by FLPACKER:
When Shields gets back in the line up, we have two guys who don't like to tackle.
This isn't fair. Shields has been A LOT better this year about sticking his nose in there and supporting the run. He may not be good at it, but he is trying.
...any time that you have a defensive player that has to "make themselves" tackle, it isn't good. Yes Shields has gotten better, but we'll have two guys out there that are not naturally agressive players.....I don't think that is good.
So he's not enjoying tackling enough? Isn't the fact that he's doing it, and doing it fairly well, enough for it to not be a negative?
I think Tackling Enjoyment should take it's place with Belly Fire Index as statistics that are vital to success.
I think Tackling Enjoyment should take it's place with Belly Fire Index as statistics that are vital to success.
(If I remember correctly) Sheilds was a WR until his Sr year at Da 'U', so learning to tackle should not be a concern.
quote:Originally posted by bdplant:
The Giants (with losses to the Steelers, Eagles, Bengals, and Cowboys) are not as good as they looked last night. Likewise, the Packers aren't as bad as they looked. At least it wasn't a playoff game.
Spot on. Giants fans felt same way two weeks ago as we do today when the Bengals beat them 31-13. Or like 49er fans did when the Giants beat them 26-3. Or like Texans fans felt when we beat them 42-24. We were missing 8 starters last night -- and lost another (CJ Wilson) early. Tough to win against excellent teams under those circumstances. I'm confident we'll rebound against the Vikings and Lions at home, and then face off against the Bears for the division title. Then we'll see who's healthy and hot come playoff time.
I think we can all feel confident we won't see that putrid of an effort by the D again, especially with some of the bodies coming back.
The biggest question mark for all of us has to be whether this makeshift OL can figure something out in time for a playoff push.
The biggest question mark for all of us has to be whether this makeshift OL can figure something out in time for a playoff push.
quote:The biggest question mark for all of us has to be whether this makeshift OL can figure something out in time for a playoff push.
You can win with this offensive line. MM and company just need to realize it's limitations. It's not a dominant line where Arod can drop back and operate under slow developing plays. When you play teams like the Giants and the Niners, GB needs to go with two TE sets for pass protection and run quick passing plays.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
So he's not enjoying tackling enough? Isn't the fact that he's doing it, and doing it fairly well, enough for it to not be a negative?
I think Tackling Enjoyment should take it's place with Belly Fire Index as statistics that are vital to success.
....the best defenses have all 11 guys who are agressive & "like" contact. I stand by my point that when you have 2 guys playing who, by all acounts, are "finese, cover guys", you are not going to be as good a defensive team, unless your front 7 are dominant...which our are not.
quote:Originally posted by sschumer:quote:Originally posted by bdplant:
The Giants (with losses to the Steelers, Eagles, Bengals, and Cowboys) are not as good as they looked last night. Likewise, the Packers aren't as bad as they looked. At least it wasn't a playoff game.
Spot on. Giants fans felt same way two weeks ago as we do today when the Bengals beat them 31-13. Or like 49er fans did when the Giants beat them 26-3. Or like Texans fans felt when we beat them 42-24. We were missing 8 starters last night -- and lost another (CJ Wilson) early. Tough to win against excellent teams under those circumstances. I'm confident we'll rebound against the Vikings and Lions at home, and then face off against the Bears for the division title. Then we'll see who's healthy and hot come playoff time.
I was really upset with the game last night and posted accordingly and with emotion - won't be the last time either. I am an all out Packer Fan and two of the many reasons why I come to this forum is to:
1) share my frustrations; and,
2) get different perspectives from others who are more positive than I am to make me feel all is not that bad -that we are still looking good!
I get a lot of value out of the example quote above - more so than posts that just scorn others who have concerns. Thank you Sschumer!
quote:.....Williams is a "finesse cover" DB who doesn't appear to like contact.
Totally disagree with that. He was as physical as anybody on the field in 2010. And if you don't remember, go back and look at the playoff games. He's not just defending passes, he's wrapping guys up and driving them into the turf. However, I think he is still really concerned about that bad shoulder and it's keeping him from really throwing himself at guys. I noticed last week on the first deep ball to Johnson that he was trailing the play like a ref rather than getting in on the pass defense. He was in position but just watched. That shoulder has got to still be bothering him. If not physically then mentally.
As for Shields, he has been plenty physical this year. When he isn't out with an injury.
Esox, kind of you to say. I come here for the same reasons. For many years I had no one to share my frustrations with after a tough Packers loss. I greatly value being able to come to X4 and share those frustrations -- and hopes -- with fellow, passionate Packer fans like yourself. Go Pack!
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
I think Tackling Enjoyment should take it's place with Belly Fire Index as statistics that are vital to success.
Your ignorance is showing. Tackling Satisfaction Factor (TSF) is 1/7th of the total defensive BFI. It is equal to, but completely different than, the Mustache Quotient for offensive players.
Games like this one happen to the best of teams. The real issue is where this team goes from here.
How does SHF (standard high five) versus TGHF (Top Gun high five) factor with total defensive BFI compared to TSF?
To be fair, no one really understands the math behind the BFI. Kind of like the Passer Rating.
To be fair, no one really understands the math behind the BFI. Kind of like the Passer Rating.